New Rules for NHL and 3 Point Win System for AHL

[Grizzly]

NHL plots radical rule changes

To boost scoring, general managers propose moving bluelines and restricting goalies

By DAVID SHOALTS
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - Page A1



HENDERSON, NEV. -- Aiming to restore offence and excitement to a game stifled by defence, National Hockey League general managers put forward a list of proposals yesterday that would result in the most radical changes in the league's modern history.

The following proposals are subject to further discussion and refinement but are likely to be adopted next season:

A reduction in the size of goaltenders' leg pads from 12 inches to 10.

Banning goaltenders from handling the puck behind the goal line.

Moving the nets and bluelines three feet closer to the end boards to simultaneously shrink the area behind the net and increase the size of the neutral zone. Doing so will restore the dimensions to what they were before the nets were moved out prior to the 1990-91 season. The space from the end board to the goal line would shrink to 10 feet from 13.

Restoring the tag-up offside rule, which was dropped prior to the 1986-87 season.

It allows the play to continue if attacking players who are offside when the puck enters the offensive zone skate out of the zone and back in again. "The trends have been obvious to us," NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said. "We'd like to see the trends start going the other way, particularly to offence and how the game is played."

Goal scoring has been in decline since the early 1990s, and complaints about dull, defensive hockey are on the rise. By last weekend's all-star break, scoring in the NHL had sunk to an average of 5.04 goals per game by both teams, the lowest point since the 1953-54 season, when it was 4.80.

Mr. Bettman and the general managers said the proposals are not aimed at producing more goals, just more scoring chances, which should make games more exciting.

"This is all serious stuff," said Edmonton Oilers GM Kevin Lowe, who was a player on the great Oiler scoring machines of the 1980s. "Does everybody want to see more goals? Not necessarily. I've said quite often that one of the most exciting games in Oiler history was a 1-0 game. We want to see more offence. We want to see more shots. If it happens to be great goaltending, so be it, but it's plays on the net. That's our focus."

The proposals -- the most sweeping since the introduction of the centre redline in 1943-44, which is considered the beginning of the game's modern era -- will be refined in the next several weeks after more discussion among the GMs and NHL officials. They will then be examined this summer by a blue-ribbon committee this summer of NHL general managers, players, former players, coaches and even some media members. From there, the proposals will go to the NHL governors for approval for next season.

The decision to put the changes for consideration to the as-yet-unnamed committee is an extra step in the usual rule-change process, but given the tradition of the governors to rubber-stamp any suggestions from the GMs, the feeling around the meetings yesterday was that the proposals will be accepted. They also have the added weight of endorsement from the NHL Players' Association, which has three representatives at the GMs' meetings. Two more proposals will be tried in the American Hockey League next season for at least one year before they may be adopted by the NHL.

One is to award three points for a win earned in regulation time, up from two, and two points for a win in the five-minute overtime period. The one point for an overtime loss would remain, while a shootout will be introduced to eliminate ties.

The AHL will also be asked to increase the width of the bluelines and the centre redline from one foot to two feet. This also increases the size of the neutral zone in hopes of creating more offensive flow.

Two measures, which Mr. Bettman called a clarification of existing rules, will go into effect in the next four or five days, as soon as referees and video goal judges are informed. Referees will now be able to award a penalty shot when a player is pulled down on a breakaway even if he does not have control of the puck. If the referee believes the player was likely to gain control, the call can be made.

The other measure will be to allow a goal that is scored when a net is teetering on its mooring pegs but is not completely knocked off. At present, goals are disallowed as soon as the net begins to tilt.

[Grizzly]

I am pleasantly surprised by these proposals. All the columnists were ignoring the 3 point system which is an easy and obvious solution for some of the current problems and were harping on the awful removal of the red line. I have seen a lot of hockey in Europe and the removal of the red line results in the hockey equivalent of long ball soccer. Stifling trap defences with a few breakaway specialists waiting near the opposing blue line (Czech National Team). Thus a boring game for 55 minutes but 5 minutes of excitement and a team that wins often against the run of play. There is no build up to the goals only one long pass and a breakaway. If they ever go to this rule in the NHL then why not skip the game entirely and go right to the penalty shootout. Thankfully the GM are considering far more intelligent proposals. I do like the larger European rinks but don't think the NHL will ever go for this for financial reasons such as having to remove a row of the most expensive seats. In Europe this is fine because most arenas have less than 10 000 seats.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

I hate the 3 points for a win system in soccer. I don't think it has decreased the amount of ties (like it was supposed to do), or does it increase offence in soccer. Take the final standings of any soccer league and recount the points using 2 for a win, 1 for a tie. What you'll find, is that only 2 or 3 teams will have a different position in the standing. What's the point?


Yeah, but those 2 or 3 teams are usually either one of the more exciting or most boring teams in the league and they are rewarded or penalized accordingly.... I love the 3 point win system. I also think it makes a big difference for the big clubs where mentally they now feel they have to go harder for the win than before the 3 point win system came into affect. In the 2 point system, if you win your home games and tie your away games you win the title. Not so in the 3-point system.

In hockey, the laughable OT system currently in place is clearly the NHL's answer to soccer's penalty shootout, only it's worse because both teams are actually rewarded. The fact that a dull 0-0 (after 60 min.) NHL game could end up being "worth" 3 points to the 2 teams combined, while a thrilling 6-5 game is only worth 2 points, is a total joke. A regulation time win SHOULD be worth more than a OT win. And this way every game will be worth 3 points except when nobody tries to win.

[argh1]

Allright , I've got my hip waders on , so here goes.
Removing the centre line, the Swedes invented the trap, anything else!
Removing the last remaining Gretzky rules. Put the goal line back where it was. He doesn't play any-more. Tag up off side, why did it go away?
The goalie handling the puck, what, where , how , huh?? Who is your pusher?
Any , fan that wants unlimited scoring , watch the NBA.
3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an overtime win,1 for a tie.But a point for a loss in overtime or not ......a point for losing , huh?

[Cheeta]

Okay, okay. I'll waffle a little on eliminating the red line, status quo there for now.

But goalies not handling the puck behind the red line? Used to be they couldn't freeze a puck behind the red line. With that I'm cool. But no handling? Hard to see that as meaning anything good for the game. Only reason for that as far as I can guess is to encourage more dump and chase and an easier counter to a blue line defence. Especially with the nets moving back closer to the boards.

A point for a draw. Three for a win. Works for me. And no, losers shouldn't get a point. I know the idea is to encourage attacking hockey. It hasn't worked yet, and it isn't going to work. The program is faulty. If you need the extra points take your chances and hope you don't get stung on a counter. Deal with it.

Oh, how about this idiot Bettman? Good old fashioned automatic icing. That'll speed up the game a wee bit. And yes, delayed/tag-up offsides. One less whistle to interrupt the fluid nature of the game.

P.S. Almost forgot, how about moving the benchs back to opposite sides of the rink? You're still going to get a far change but you want to see the ice open up a little almost instantly, just put the benchs back.

Standard sizes for goalie equipment somewhat smaller than they are currently. Either that or make the pads out of cotton and leather again. The size of those things now... they'd be 60 pounds, easy. DRY!!! That would sure keep the goalies from roaming out of their crease. Might even see a return to stand up goaltending.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

My main point, is that, the 3 point system, does not enhance scoring. Teams still play for the tie when they are playing a stronger team.


Hmmm... I'm interested to find-out if this is in fact the case. That is, did it increase scoring? So far I've only looked at Italy and compared the total goals scored in the leagues in the last 2 season under the 2-point win system to the total goals scored in the first 2 seasons under the 3-pt win system:

Serie A:
Goals in 2 pt. system: 1599
Goals in 3 pt system: 1578

Serie B:
Goals in 2 pt. system: 1535
Goals in 3 pt system: 1725

Reference: http://www2.raisport.rai.it/mcalcio/

OF course, more leagues will have to be looked at to draw any conclusion. But serie B seemed to suddenly see a big increase in goals scored right after the 3-pt win system kicked-in. Coincidence? :)

[beachesl]

Good research you have done, amacpher. My interpretation of your data so far is that it has had negligible and indirect effect on scoring. I suspect that the greater increase in Serie B would be because not only is there relegation to avoid, there is promotion to achieve - that, and the fact that there are more teams scrambling for the same spaces, would increase the chaotic effect of the intensity of play, and the slight increase in goals would be of secondary effect.

In terms of the effectiveness of the three-point rule, more to the point would be seeing the statistics as to whether the 3 point rule in system has reduced draws, or "tied games".

The stated purpose of the three point rule in soccer was not to increase scoring, but to try to reduce the sorry but obvious spectacle of teams being content to play for ties.

This may sometimes increase the efforts of some teams to score goals, but would likewise make a leading club to increase defence in an effort to avoid the greater penalty of receiving a tie. This is the fallacious thinking of those in the NHL who see a change in the point system as a way to increase offensive play in hockey. It will increase intensity of games to have three points for a win, but it may often cause an increase in the defensive intensity it is trying to combat.

FIFA brought in it's "clarification" (obtuse, and a "plausible denial" term) of the off-side rule last fall as an effort to increase offensive soccer, and it may have this effect. Any NHL game rule changes will have varying effect on increasing hockey offense and scoring, but NHL point changes will not. Having a rule, like the NASL use to, to increase the points of a win if a excess number of goals scored would, but nobody would want to see that absolute stupidity.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by MassiveAttack

Well, I guess I was wrong.

Too early to say. WE'll have to look at other leagues in the same manner. Perhaps on my next day-off.


quote:Originally posted by beachesl


This may sometimes increase the efforts of some teams to score goals, but would likewise make a leading club to increase defence in an effort to avoid the greater penalty of receiving a tie. This is the fallacious thinking of those in the NHL who see a change in the point system as a way to increase offensive play in hockey. It will increase intensity of games to have three points for a win, but it may often cause an increase in the defensive intensity it is trying to combat.



Yeah, the NHL way of thinking is flawed to put it mildly. Now instead of a 5-minute boring O.T. we are stuck with boring 3rd periods followed by a meaningless O.T. (since the 4-v-4 doesn't exist during the real/playoff season).... I didn't even know about that NASL rule you mentioned. My goodness, that is retarded!! [xx(]

[beachesl]

Here ya go, scientific proof from two academic studies, the first from the Journal of Empirical Economics, that prove that the "TPR" , Three Point Rule, in fact promotes defensive football.

http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=ba750ytwxq7xxlgu8g8h&referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,9;journal,6,25;linkingpublicationre sults,id:102505,1

Abstract. In the mid-nineties FIFA decided to increase from two to three the number of points assigned to the winning team of a soccer match played under traditional round-robin national leagues. Since a game of soccer can be regarded as a contest, FIFA's measure provides an interesting case-study for analysing how a change in the system of rewards (from a zero to a non-zero sum rule) may affect the contestants' equilibrium behaviour. In this paper we try to assess, both theoretically and empirically, whether FIFA's new point rule has changed soccer towards a more offensive game, in which teams adopt more risky strategies. In particular, we evaluate the "naïve hypothesis" according to which the measure would induce every team to play always more offensively, and we explore the extent to which the change in teams' behaviour may be affected by quality differentials between teams. Our most important hypothesis is that when the asymmetry between opposing teams is large enough, an increase in the reward for victory induces the weaker team to play more defensively, rather than the opposite. By looking at a subset of matches held in the Portuguese first division league, which approximate the conditions of our model, we find support for this hypothesis.

and, http://www.unibw-hamburg.de/WWEB/vwl/info/paperno22.pdf

This study shows that niether the number of goals scored nor wins (as opposed to draws) registered is significantly effected by the TPR. The only significant increase is in the unpredictability of the rsult, and in the authour's mind the "excitement", because the data shows that the percentage of home wins is reduced to a moderate degree. "Excitement" to an economist is not defined to any exactitude.

Now, don't that just jar yer pickles[:o)]?

[beachesl]

Here ya go, scientific proof from two academic studies, the first from the Journal of Empirical Economics, that prove that the "TPR" , Three Point Rule, in fact promotes defensive football.

http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=ba750ytwxq7xxlgu8g8h&referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,9;journal,6,25;linkingpublicationre sults,id:102505,1

Abstract. In the mid-nineties FIFA decided to increase from two to three the number of points assigned to the winning team of a soccer match played under traditional round-robin national leagues. Since a game of soccer can be regarded as a contest, FIFA's measure provides an interesting case-study for analysing how a change in the system of rewards (from a zero to a non-zero sum rule) may affect the contestants' equilibrium behaviour. In this paper we try to assess, both theoretically and empirically, whether FIFA's new point rule has changed soccer towards a more offensive game, in which teams adopt more risky strategies. In particular, we evaluate the "naïve hypothesis" according to which the measure would induce every team to play always more offensively, and we explore the extent to which the change in teams' behaviour may be affected by quality differentials between teams. Our most important hypothesis is that when the asymmetry between opposing teams is large enough, an increase in the reward for victory induces the weaker team to play more defensively, rather than the opposite. By looking at a subset of matches held in the Portuguese first division league, which approximate the conditions of our model, we find support for this hypothesis.

and, http://www.unibw-hamburg.de/WWEB/vwl/info/paperno22.pdf

This study shows that niether the number of goals scored nor wins (as opposed to draws) registered is significantly effected by the TPR. The only significant increase is in the unpredictability of the rsult, and in the authour's mind the "excitement", because the data shows that the percentage of home wins is reduced to a moderate degree. "Excitement" to an economist is not defined to any exactitude.

Now, don't that just jar yer pickles[:o)]?

[beachesl]

Conclusion. Just changing the points system will make those neutral-zone-crap Devils even more successful. Blah!

[beachesl]

Conclusion. Just changing the points system will make those neutral-zone-crap Devils even more successful. Blah!

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by beachesl

Conclusion. Just changing the points system will make those off-side-crap Devils even more successful. Blah!


I'll read those articles shortly, but already I'm skeptical of them just after reading the abstract.

Anyhow, here is the total ties in serie A before and after the 3PR was put in effect:

# ties in:
1992/93: 104
1993/94: 104
--- 3PR starts ---
1994/95: 77
1995/96: 80

A drastic decrease!!

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by beachesl

Conclusion. Just changing the points system will make those off-side-crap Devils even more successful. Blah!


I'll read those articles shortly, but already I'm skeptical of them just after reading the abstract.

Anyhow, here is the total ties in serie A before and after the 3PR was put in effect:

# ties in:
1992/93: 104
1993/94: 104
--- 3PR starts ---
1994/95: 77
1995/96: 80

A drastic decrease!!

[beachesl]

Can't argue with your stats. I like the TPR, and common sense says it will decrease ties, even if it doesn't increase scoring, and that's a good thing. I think it's an especially good thing for Group play in tournaments, it makes the final group game that much more important.

I'm guessing here, but, I would say another effect, along with the increase of teams eligible for Euro competition, over the past 8 or 9 years is to increase the distance between the top few teams and the rest of the table, with the rest of the table divided into mid-table scramblers and relgation-avoiders by a similiar gap. Someday maybe I'll dig up the stats, but I'm just too lazy lately.

I wonder why FIFA hasn't done a grand statistical study of TPR. Maybe they will later this year, it is roughly the 10th anniversary.